Give me something juicy

  • bsit@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Scientific thought demands proof of consciousness using matter as the base assumption, yet matter itself is only ever observed through consciousness. It’s a circular trap: the method assumes what it’s supposed to prove.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Scientific thought demands proof of consciousness using matter as the base assumption

      Would it? I’d say that would depend on the theory being defended at the moment. Which one are you talking about, and how does it define consciousness?

      • bsit@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I don’t need to defend the idea with the ideas of a system that hasn’t first proven itself.

        To say anything about the world, you blatantly obviously need consciousness first. That’s the status quo. The burden of proof is on materialists.

        I already gave definitions in my first post.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          16 hours ago

          To say anything about the world, you blatantly obviously need consciousness first. That’s the status quo. The burden of proof is on materialists.

          Burden of proof for what? That you need a brain to make observations of the world? That’s not a hard claim to support.

          You, however, seem to assert some form of magical super-consciousness that seems utterly undisprovable

            • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Ohhhhhh, its solipsism in a trenchcoat.

              Indeed, I can’t solve the problem of hard solipsism, but neither can you. I can only say that we’ve made a pretty successful run at things by just assuming we all share an objective reality.

              And if that reality doesn’t exist outside my brain, I’m a pretty fucking impressively smart girl, with some really fucked up issues.

              • bsit@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                15 hours ago

                It’s not solipsism, as I specifically said in my first post. It’s idealism. There’s a significant difference. I suggest you read on it before throwing around terms.